Vincent Lowe Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 70,000 photos, 15 days shooting, 2 months post production, 365 gigapixels.... http://www.in2white.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Ventura Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 That is very cool! Did you spot the lone guy snowshoeing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Lowe Posted June 8, 2015 Author Share Posted June 8, 2015 I hadn't but had another look and found him. Odd thing though - he is wearing a harness. Why wear a harness if you are going solo? However, zoom out a bit and the snow slopes to the right seem to have a mirror image so perhaps the rest of the party he was roped to have disappeared 'through the looking glass'. I've been trying to add a screen shot, linked from Photobucket, but it says 'that extension is not allowed' or something of that ilk, even though it's jpeg and only 500 pixels wide. I give up. Here's the link anyway - http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc205/loweskid/alamy%20forum/blanc1_zpsbo4ffi3g.jpg~original Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Richmond Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Awesome imagery - but you can see (some of) the joins. Probably wouldn't pass QC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 An interesting technical exercise, but who cares? Just because you can, does not mean that you should. I heard they were trying to print it out at 100%, but they are having trouble finding a piece of paper the size of Mont Blanc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 It's sort of ironic that many, many less images, few enough to be taken in say one hour, would have produced a much "cleaner" image with less obvious joins, albeit a very much smaller resolution (comparatively) final image. The misaligned cables and non-matching patterns on the snow make it a rather poor image, imo, despite the immensity of its resolution. Paraphrasing Bill above, "can" is not synonymous with "should", especially when "accuracy" is so badly compromised. EDIT: and persisting with the theme, neither is "big" synonymous with "good", nor "biggest" with "best" . . . dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floydian Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 There are many flaws inside the image. Some stitching problems and lots of dust spots....bad editing when it comes to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.